<originally posted July 2017 & reposted as I ponder lessons from the Mueller Report>

==============

“Life doesn’t get easier or more forgiving, we get stronger and more resilient.”

—

Steve Maraboli

=============

“You will find out who you are not a thousand times, before you ever discover who you are.”

—–

William Chapman

=============

…. Trump attitude toward “playing the game of Life ” …..

Yeah. I have to comment on Donald Jr agreeing to meet with someone who clearly stated they were part of a Russian initiative to support Trump and may have information <illegally gained or legally gained?> to sink Hillary Clinton.

I have to comment because this, to me, in a nutshell captures the essence of what Trump represents and what we in America need to think about as part of a soul searching exercise.

From my standpoint it boils down to one question of what is more important to Americans — a) being legally correct <or just okay> or <b> being morally okay.

Trump ran a ‘win at any cost/no rules’ campaign <which is exactly how he runs his business> and … well … we Americans need to decide whether this represents who and what we are. I say that because it seems like we continuously miss the bigger issue as we turn ourselves into pretzels either trying to prove some criminal guilt or, conversely, prove criminal innocence.

While that is important from a legal standpoint America has never stood for “playing within the fringes of the rules” <let alone ‘no rules’>.

Sure. Some do, but 90+% of Americans abhor people who win by some technicality or skate by on some cringe worthy fringe legal basis.

I would suggest people think about this Trump Jr. meeting in one of these ways:

Someone steals a test and offers it to your high school child <and I believe West Point has a clear point of view on this>

Someone steals private photos off someone’s phone and posts them online <or offers to sell them to you exclusively>

Someone steals the other high school team’s game plan and offers it to you before the game <and you tell your players how you got it?>

Or how about this one for adults …

Someone steals a patented process from some company and they offer to give it to you so they lose their exclusivity <and you can compete directly> — note: this is against the law

Let me be clear.

Sure. It happens in the business world. We do some crappy shit on occasion. Mostly we do it behind closed doors and don’t tell anyone because we know it is either legally suspect and absolutely morally an embarrassment.

We certainly do not go home and sit our children down at the dinner table and say “this is the right way to do it.”

My point is that “winning” is not just about that moment in time, that game and that competition. It has ripples in which our youth watches, learns and decides how they want to play the game for the rest of their Life.

It is absurd to believe “I won” justifies all behavior. Most Americans know this in their hearts if not their souls.

I personally think the Trump clan is free of any morals and just think in terms of power and in terms of making deals for their own financial benefit, not to serve the country’s strategic interests, and the win is all that matters <at any cost and in any way>.

I do not loathe Trump or anyone who cruises on the Trump ship of fools, but I loathe the absence of integrity, dignity and, in general, their inability <or, incapability> to win by playing by the rules.

I do not loathe Trump or anyone who cruises on the Trump ship of fools, but I loathe the fact they believe their hollow way of conducting themselves will make America great again <and all it will do is make it hollow>.

That said.

I have debated what makes America exceptional, or great, with dozens and dozens of people. Most find it either odd, or interesting, in that while I acknowledge morality and freedoms and democracy I tend to focus more on a pragmatic aspect – how you play the game of Life & business in America.Or maybe I could call it “freedom to win” because in America we foster a belief that how you win matters, therefore, anyone can win.

The corollary to that thought is when something becomes “rigged” that translates into “some people are not playing the game the American way” therefore we get angry. I argue it this way because … well … it is a simplistic idea, easy to grasp, for an everyday schmuck like me and I tend to believe most of us every day schmucks don’t want to be too philosophical or intellectual.

By the way. My belief in this American identity isn’t something I just pulled out of my ass.

The most pragmatic truth about America and its identity is that America’s founding fathers wanted to do shit <Just Do It>. And they realized that if the country offered everyone the opportunity to do shit, and as much doing as they could, the country itself would prosper … and everyone would prosper in their “pursuit of happiness” <which is inevitably grounded in some vision of doing some shit>.

In order to create this equal opportunity to ‘do’ within the “we the people” they established the American way to play the game. In this game we could choose captains and coaches if we wanted, but the foundation was that on day one anyone could become a captain or coach if they wanted or they could just pursue happiness of doing shit however they wanted <within legal & moral boundaries>.

Rigid constitutionalists will most likely hate what I am going to say next but, to me, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were developed as kind of our league’s rules of the game & engagement. Not to be taken literally but to establish a foundation from which all the players and teams could compete fairly.

I would note here that whether you like the way I am saying this or not … if I were a betting man I would put a lot of money on the belief the everyday schmuck would be more likely to ‘get’ this than all the politicians blathering about rights & privileges & constitutionally legal intellectual mumbo jumbo.

To be clear. Trump doesn’t believe this nor do I believe he would even understand half this shit I just typed, but he would instinctually abhor the idea as he is the ultimate spokesperson for “win at any cost.”

I believe there needs to be a counterbalance to the Trump “just win” megaphone and there needs to be a voice of clarity for “how you win matters is not just a theoretical discussion but it is actually a pragmatic discussion of what is at the core of who and what America is” not as anti-Trump, but to pose the challenge to America.

We need to frame the narrative as a discussion which becomes the foundation in every home, business, government and playing field – the American identity. But, in my eyes, we shouldn’t do this discussion just under moral imperatives or “what is right thing to do”, but do it in the cultural identity of America which is “doing.” To me it is the intellectual spin of Trump’s dumbed down version of the discussion. Trump talks wins but we should be talking about how we win because it gets to the idea of who and what America is and not simply results and ‘doing outcomes.’

What Trump doesn’t understand is that America is an idea and not a bunch of transactions. He believes if he can create enough ‘positive transactions’ that people will view him as a success, and America as a success, because the balance sheet will say “success.” This treats America like a commodity with no ‘value’ <which, by the way, is not an expression of exceptionalism just ‘exceptional doers’>.

America is not a bunch of transactions and jobs, America is an idea. And, to me, that idea is “winning the right way.”

The American identity has always been about doing shit the right way and winning the right way.

That is our sweet spot and it defines how we think we are exceptional <at least to the nonintellectual everyday schmucks like me>.

We are forgiving, slightly, to those who win on some technicality or ‘technically legal’ thing, but, even then, we debate whether it was winning by being smarter … or by ‘cheating’ in some way.

Regardless … this debate inevitably ends with a general feeling that the win “just wasn’t completely right’ <or … “it wasn’t a good win”>.

You can get away with this on occasion.

Someone who always wins on technicalities or does shit always just within what could be construed as legal is always a “shady winner” or someone “gaming the system.” We don’t like these people.

And then, of course, there are others who play by non – American rules. They win on occasion, but it is only because they couldn’t win by playing by our rules and within our behavioral boundaries.

That is who and what we are and Trump is challenging that.

I believe we would all benefit from this debate.

No.

I KNOW we would all benefit from this debate.

Everyone.

I admit. I am banking on the fact Trump loses in this debate and Republicans and Democrats will win by having the debate <and therefore America wins>.

To be clear. This is not about moral superiority but rather digs deep into the ‘code of who and what America is.’ We are the “just do it” country <I encourage everyone to pick up Clotairre Rapaille’s “The Culture Code”, avoid the wacky aspects and hunker down on the insightful parts>. We are impatient, we like to do and we are perpetually dissatisfied. And, yet, all that said any exceptionalism we may have resides in HOW we do shit. In our heart of hearts we know that anyone can ‘do’, but Americans ‘do it the right way’ therefore our outcomes, our work and our ‘wins’ are better and more exceptional because we do them the right way.

That said. We forget this, just as any sports team who hasn’t won a frickin game in forever, when some asshat comes along and says we are losers and we need to do whatever it takes to win.

But ‘just win’ goes counter to what any high school football coach teaches his team, what any parent teaches their kid, what every general instills in their soldiers, what every good business leader cultivates within their organization … we recognize that in the end wins are hollow if we haven’t played the game right, it was fair and we didn’t cheat <or lower ourselves to the way cheaters and assholes play>. We play tough, we will always be competitive and we will ‘do’ and win ON OUR TERMS.

Trump encourages us to let others define America’s terms.

What an asshat.

America’s wins should be better than everyone else’s wins because we are the shining light on the hill for an impatient, doing, perpetually dissatisfied way of winning the right way.

That said <to look thru a political lens>, to me, “How you play the game, and win, matters” <or, “winning at any cost is not American”> is an effective framing of American identity which puts Republicans at a disadvantage because they will get trapped between what they want to say <and what I imagine many of them truly believe> and Trump. I also think it provides Democrats an easy way to reframe what Trump wants to do but because he is too stupid they can frame it in a way that appeals to tangible outcomes, results, programs & policies rather than simple platitudes.

For example.

Trump is too stupid to realize that he could talk about healthcare in economic terms instead of getting into that wretched ‘is healthcare a right or a privilege’ discussion. America is an economic engine. And as any business owner will tell you the more days healthy happy employees are at work the more productive they are <and the more productive the company is>. Business owners would kill to limit absenteeism and increase productivity when an employee is at work.

The day I can get all 180 employees, or 18, at work, 100% healthy, is the day my business is most productive.

That is what healthcare does. Extrapolate that out to America itself. The day I can get 180 million working people at work, 100% healthy, is the day that America is at its most productive. While healthcare is certainly a moral issue it is also an economic productivity issue. If everyone in America is healthy, than our economy is healthy. Frame the discussion this way and it gets us stop talking about ‘mean’ and ‘cruel’ and start talking benefits. This is an excellent example of insuring that everyone in America has a chance to win by playing the game the right way <and insuring someone doesn’t win simply because of a technicality>.

Beyond that one example, how you play the game matters extends into education, opportunity in general, how government conducts itself, the military, well, someone smarter than I can bring the idea to Life in any tactical & policy discussion you want.

This idea also plays into an overall theme of “u pluribus unim”. If we all have opportunities, maximize our potential by playing the game right when given an opportunity and working hard, the many ‘ones’ doing it the right way means “the one” <America> is great <or exceptional>. Therefore “Great” is defined not by some nebulous Trumpism but rather by something anyone and everyone can do, talk about and judge others by <and Trump will inevitably judged harshly on this standard>.

Uhm.

This is not anti Trump but rather “look, we are talking about a lot of transactions and tactics and jobs and policies and programs not a lot about how we should go about doing it so that everyone has a chance of winning.”

This is not an anti-Trump position. This is a “decide who you want to be America and judge your leaders based on who you want to be” message. We need this discussion and debate. I worry that the soul of America is under attack and I am banking on the fact what is right can beat what is wrong as long as they both enter the playing field – someone just needs to bring them both there.

Yeah.

I think this discussion would create dinner table, hallway and classroom discussion for months to come. And I think this is the kind of discussion with moms, dads, teachers, coaches, programmers, blue collar workers, students, etc.

Anyway.

Trump Jr behavior, which I think is indicative of Trump Sr behavior, reminded me once again that HOW we do shit matters. This is about norms, and normal behavior, versus simple legality.

We set out explicit rules and guidelines and sometimes these appear as laws.

They are meant to showcase a red line for behavior.

And, boy oh boy … we sure do bitch about how many laws we have and how many regulations are in place and how many rules we face that curb our success. The government is most likely the main villain in this story.

Sadly, most of us act like government sits around coming up with rules and laws and regulations simply to stifle freedom in our lives – personal and business.

It may behoove us to think a little more about why those rules , regulations and laws came about and how we still have some room to navigate that which is a fairly large playing field called “norms.”

Norms, in my pea like brain, reside inside a buffer zone which lies in the area just prior to reaching one of these red lines. They are usually unstated and they are usually simply expected for those who uphold some integrity and they are usually just done by people who have some inner sense of ‘right.’ Trump reminds me of some people who I have worked with who have constantly suggested “but it is legal.” And, 90% of the time, I have felt uneasy about what we were about to do. Not that it was illegal but rather it <a> tested what I would consider a norm and <b> it was clearly in that buffer zone that got too close to the red line.

Yeah. There will always be people who will dance on the icy brink of the red line and these same people will dance while singing “it is legal.”

It is a hollow song to sing.

Let’s just say there are two basic types of people:

Those who see norms, and normative behavior, and see it as guidelines for right or wrong <and subsequently check laws, rules and regulations to be sure all is good & legal>. In other words behavior doesn’t have to be dictated by some rule or law but more often than not “what seem like the right thing to do.”

Those who see “anything that could be deemed legal”, or, conversely, “if it is not expressly forbidden than it is permissible”. These people don’t ever ponder “what seems like the right thing to do” because, to them, if it is legal it is right. In other words … if bad actions do not amount to crimes than it is good enough to do to earn a win/reward.

……… choose to be strong …

That is actually the choice America needs to make with regard to its identity – which represents who and what we are.

This is a moment. A moment for America to look in the mirror and decide what kind of person they want to be.

All I know is I do not want to look in the mirror and see Donald Trump Jr. looking back at me.

All I know is I do not want to look in the mirror and see Donald Trump Sr. looking back at me.

But that’s me.

Everyone needs to make their own decision … I just think someone needs to stand up and tell everyone “now is the time we all need to look in the mirror.”

“I’ve been injected with false hope so many fucking times I’ve lost count”

—–

via concealthefeeling

===========

“We all suffer from dreams.”

―

Bernard Cornwell

=============

Well. I am unequivocally a hope guy.

I believe leaders should be dealers of hope.

I believe hope is stronger than … well … pretty much anything.

I believe no one should be empty of hope.

I believe everyone deserves someone to give them hope when hopelessness seems the only thing available.

That said.

While, technically, false hope is a simple definition, realistically, there are a couple kinds of false hope.

Ok. Actually a shitload of derivatives of false hope.

In my words there would be, on one end of the spectrum, the more heinous version of ‘offering a fantasy unrealistic thought’ all the way over to the other bookend of ‘grasping for some glimmer of a semi-impossible reality.”

And then everything in between.

Hope, in even a false way, has many dimensions. And within any and all dimensions I would suggest even a sliver of hope has an exponential value beyond its mere size. It is quite possible that is where false hope becomes a little dangerous – that exponential value beyond its actual size.

Even with a glimmer hope can shine so bright it can blind you to the relentless onslaught of truths and realities. The truths which are more likely to showcase the horizon you are not only gonna be stuck looking at but visiting at some point <which is not the horizon you had actually hoped for>. But false hope is maybe even slightly more dangerous than that <if anything could be more dangerous than be blinded by reality>.

It actually is more likely to blind you on the important little shit than the meaningless bigger shit. False hope inevitably drives someone to focus on the bigger more audacious, and less likely, objective. This translates into the fact that same someone is more likely to overlook the smaller more important shit that would actually have increased the odds of attaining the hopeful objective.

How does that most often happen?

You are more likely to make some smaller, more impactful, poor choices and decisions hanging on to the sliver of false hope like it is a security blanket from the dangers of the reality you know must be out there.

By the way. That is the main difference between real hope and false hope – in the nuts & bolts aspects.

Real hope. Real hope, which truly has aspects of reality embedded within, actually permits you to navigate reality’s obstacles as you pursue the real hope of something. The real truth is that real hope does not blind, it actually opens your eyes. That said. Contrary to belief the most dangerous false hope is not the one which is complete fantasy it is the type that actually has some reality embedded.

Yeah. False hope is not always some fantasy.

Yeah. False hope is not always something with “no knowable chance of coming to fruition.”

Yeah. As I stated in the beginning someone who purposefully propagates a true fantasy, something so unrealistic, well, that really isn’t false hope that is propagating a lie. And exploiting a lie is a heinous act <but that is NOT false hope>.

But, to be clear, false hope can be propagated not as some false promise or lie but rather in a weird ‘well intended way.’ Say, for example, someone has been elevated to a position who is unqualified and untested … but has some tested competency.

They sit down at their new desk with all the intentions to succeed and all the words to suggest everyone should believe they will figure it out and succeed.

Well. Let’s say they have strong well intended hope that they will do the job and deliver what they promise.

That is a trickier version of false hope. It is propagated from someone who quite possibly has some false beliefs with regard to their own capabilities, but true belief in a good objective.

Uhm. But what if they do figure it out?

Well. They have delivered on hopes therefore, in some weird equation of Life, a false hope has becomes a real hope delivered.

Look. My point is hope is hope.

And unless someone is lying just to get everyone’s unrealistic hopes up, any hope is better than no hope. You can either not have hope, or have false hope, or real hope <albeit ‘real’ and ‘hope’ is a tenuous relationship>.

To be clear … all actions should be determined by reason, logic and practicality within a construct of strategic hope. That is the main Hope equation.

But hope is … well … hope. And it is hope for a reason. You want something better and at exactly the same time you are not omniscient nor a future prognosticator therefore any and all hoe is fraught with some potential falseness an some potential truth.

Hope, in and of itself, is and has always been an abstract concept.

Fortune, luck, hard work & preparation can guide someone toward hope or away from hope. Hope is never, and I mean NEVER, representative of certainty. Therefore to accept any hope, false of true, you have to accept the existence of possibilities – good and bad.

To me, in my pea like brain, all false hope implies is that the odds are against you and success is slim, yet, people believe they can overcome any and all obstacles. And, in that point, is where I could argue that false hope is as good as any hope out there.

For in that statement if that is what makes someone get out of bed in the morning and go out and try to do something good or even just try, well, that’s not false that is real.

Having led people I do not use hope flippantly even though I believe in hope as a leadership responsibility.

I do believe people want truth.

I do believe people want to feel safe.

I do believe people want someone to accept some of the burden of the bigger more visionary aspects of Life.

I do believe people want to contribute, personally, within progress toward a specific hope for something better.

I do believe Hope, false or true, is hope.

And we all deserve hope.

===========

“People aren’t interested in the truth.

They’re interested in what keeps them safe.

They’re interested in being looked after. They’re interested in a tale being spun… Mighty men have moments of great despair that common people do not want to know about.”

“So it is with minds. Unless you keep them busy with some definite subject that will bridle and control them, they throw themselves in disorder hither and yon in the vague field of imagination … and there is no mad or idle fancy that they do not bring forth in the agitation.”

―

Michel de Montaigne

==============

“Have you noticed that even the busiest people are never too busy to take time to tell you how busy they are?”

―

Bob Talbert

===============

Well. I don’t care what you do, where you work or what matters to you, we all want to get credit for the shit we do and we all know that part of ‘getting credit’ is looking like you are actually doing something.

By the way, this is different than the art of looking busy. Looking busy is all about making it look like you have too much to do and have so much responsibility that:

<a> people will look at you as so important that everyone has given you all that stuff to do, and

<b> no one should dare to give you any more to do because you already have so much to do.

Yes.

This is an art in and of itself. But the art of looking like you are actually doing something is a completely different heinous skill. On this one the person is actually trying to attach themselves to some types of outcomes.

I call this a heinous skill because in order to be truly effective at this art you:

<a> aren’t actually doing a shitload of meaningful stuff,

<b> you invest a lot of energy wandering in the middle of actual responsibility so that you can absolve yourself of bad shit and take credit/responsibility for good shit, and

<c> take credit for a shitload of shit you have never actually ever done.

I thought about this topic because Donald J Trump may be the poster child for the art of looking like you are doing something. He may have a PhD in it. He is a master at the two things which make up a successful “looking like he is doing something:”

Everything revolves around me.

The corollary to this is “nothing good could ever happen unless I was involved”.

The corollary to that is “anything bad that happens is because they didn’t involve me enough”.

=============

“We don’t need all the people they want us to get. Let me tell you ― the one that matters is me. I’m the only one that matters because when it comes to it, that’s what the policy is going to be.”

Donald J Trump

===============

Now. For the everyday schmuck like me it is easy to shuffle paperwork, get on the computer with two screens <one personal, one work so you can switch and not get busted> and a variety of little things at your desk that kind of fill up some down time all the while implying good shit is happening because of me. This is what doers do. Make their doing look essential (and in many cases it actually is). It’s part of showcasing you have value although your work may not look like it’s that valuable.

But at the senior management level, it is truly an art.

They have the ability to paint a picture of ‘my job is so important that my company wouldn’t make it without me’that, well, some really senior people start believing it!

Look. There is truly being essential and then there is claiming to be essential. Those who are essential don’t need to try and look like they are doing something, 95% of the time they are simply in demand. People want them to be involved. That’s how you find essential people. They are the ones in demand. No one demands the jerk who wants to look like they are doing something, but don’t actually do something.

Next.

insure you have enough wins to point to because the bigger the win the less you have to do elsewhere (the art of metaphorical winning).

Metaphorical winning is like having medals for nothing (but you have medals). Resumes are strewn with this type of shit under the guise of “all the things I have done.”

Anyway. Insuring you have enough wins is tricky for the “looking like doing something” artists.

“Lots of little wins” doesn’t work because … uhm … to have lots of real tangible little wins you will actually have had to have done something.

“Lots of little <fake> wins” is difficult to make work because keeping track of things you have supposedly done while simply looking like you were getting something done takes a shitload of work and bullshitting.

Now. Here is where the masters of looking like you are doing something are truly skilled – they are the ones who can envision the future. Huh? They can see no big wins in the immediate future and they recognize that imperils their just looking like they are doing something and they start worry that they may actually have to do something. So they get to work.

What do they do? They find some small win and make it look exponentially better and bigger than it is. They make gestures with flamboyance to create an illusion of “bigness.” It is small stuff that is just bigly in appearance.

Some of what I have written may sound absurd because wins & achievements should be relatively easy to discern, but they are not. Most of the meaningful achievements often look frickin’ small when outlined & explained and, in today’s world, we get encouraged to show big. So the art of looking thoughtfully busy people have an edge here because they are masters at self PR.

That said. Maybe that’s where the rubber hits the road. Find the ones who are comfortable with the small, looking small, but have the bigger achievements.

In the end.

I believe senior people who have mastered the art of looking busy are assholes. They are assholes because business thrives on not looking busy, but actually doing things. Anything less than that, particularly if you are being paid more, is business malpractice.

They look thoughtful but haven’t offered a useful thought in years (all the while claiming to be a thought leader).

They look like they are successful but really don’t know how to actually do the somethings they have claimed to do.

They look like they are essential (mostly because their big wins are wrapped around “I was the energy that lifted everyone – but I cannot point to what things I did) but struggle to consistently show their essentialness other than grand results.

They look like assholes trying to look busy, and thoughtful, and sucking morale & energy away from the ones actually doing good shit and not caring who gets credit for it.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

==============

I have to disagree with Ralphie <which is what I believe his mother called him>. Consistency and <some> predictability gets a bad rap. In other words … consistency is neither foolish nor refuge of solely small minds. Nor is it a hobgoblin of anything <let alone little minds>.

<I am pleased to be able to use the inestimable, and not oft-used, hobgoblin word>

Please note. I write this as a person who abhors being too predictable in personal life and in business. I like going left just because the directions say go right just to see what those who tell you to go right are missing.

But. Here is an uncomfortable truth <at least to me>. Most of us like some consistency in our lives. Aw heck … I will admit it … most of us like a lot <as in shitload> of consistency in our lives.

Oh. And by lives I mean Life as well as in business.

Despite the fact we so often speak of ‘throw caution to the wind’ or that we like to be unpredictable or we like to be spontaneous or ‘be random’, we really don’t.

Yes. We say it, but, rarely do it.

We like consistency and some predictability to provide a solid backbone to our lives. And as a manager of employees you absolutely cherish some consistent behavior day in and day out.

Now, to be fair to Welles & Emerson, when is consistency a refuge of small minds?

Well. I refer to this as “small living.” It is consistent just for comfort sake. It is actually lazy living but made worse because it is living under the guise of something else — lack of any risk. Hence the reason I call it ‘small living.’ This type of consistency keeps you from exploring the bigness Life has to offer those willing to discover what is beyond consistency & predictability boundaries.

Here is what I think about that. That type of thinking, in most countries and languages, inevitably leads to a ornière, rodera, keréknyom, kiima <rut> or être en rut, in een sleur, essere in un solco, olla kiima <be in a rut>.

Rut … as in ‘an elongated hole.’

Oh my. So being too consistent or predictable is living in a hole? Yup.

Here is a reminder about holes. They typically:

<a> have slippery slopes leading down to the bottom,

<b> it is really really difficult to stop sliding down a slippery slope once on it,

<c> you need someone to pull you out of the hole once you are in it <or you stay in it>.

Just as spontaneity is imagined to be better than it actually is <because the other word for ‘spontaneity’ is ‘surprise’ and, despite surprise’s incredible reputation, the truth is that most surprises are bad> predictability can become tantalizingly too attractive. Geez. So I have just said predictability is tantalizingly attractive … as well as consistency … and, uh oh, even spontaneity. That certainly explains why Life can be so confusing at times. All things different but tantalizingly attractive <insert a big fat ‘Yikes’ here>.

Now. Explaining life is a shitload easier than actually living it and doing what needs to be done to maximize it.

Let me explain how difficult it can be. Life best lived walks a razor thin balance of several things:

<please note … this is not research but rather Bruce quasi-vapid thinking>

And I would suggest <using my research brain knowledge> that this razor thin balance is maybe an 80%-15%-5% <with a +/- 2.5% margin of error> Life mix.

Yup. Me, the lover of not being too predictable … accepts the fact that having the majority of Life be familiar and consistent and predictable as, this pains me to admit, good. Because with some people, using my margin of error. less than 2.5% of your entire Life can actually consist of any true spontaneity and you could be one of the happiest non-hobgoblins on the face of the earth.

Oh. Please note that I believe “planned spontaneity’ is possibly the biggest oxymoron of this generation.We are so obsessed with time and ‘maximizing each available moment’ for fear of ‘wasting anything’ that we actually plan our free time.

This kind of seems nuts to me.

I sometimes believe that in our objective driven world focused on predictability <including measuring success on how well we were able to predict our outcome, including happiness — which seems slightly ludicrous> that we have lost sight of the fact Life is often meant to be lived to ‘do’ & to discover and that the discovery is the measurement not the supposed end value of that discovery.

Do I value the road which was rocky, overgrown and comes to an aggravating dead end as more valuable than the one which was scenic, smooth and ends with a beautiful view?

Whew. I don’t know. I would hope that I don’t measure them against each other, but rather accept the discovery as the success. Oh. That is where predictability rears its ugly head.

Predictability and consistency is often measured in today’s time obsessed world as not only the process & the routine, but also in the result. And maybe that is where I do begin to edge into consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds. I would be foolish to suggest we don’t all aim for more positive results than negative ones because we do. Why? Simply because we all want to be happy.

But if you live your life solely focused on ‘only doing what will make me happy’ <or has the highest probability of happiness> based on predictable behavior I would suggest you have committed to not only a fairly boring path you still will not be 100% successful in reaching your intended objective.

In business? It sounds frustratingly non innovative <and a sure path down the slippery slope of mediocrity>.

And maybe that is the point.

Too much consistency and predictability only insures a life of happy <possibly content> mediocrity.

Maybe some people are content with mediocrity, but I would suggest that Life isn’t really meant to be mediocre. It is meant to be spectacularly exciting and disappointing. Maybe not all the time <any one of us would eventually get sick if 24 hours a day we rode the world’s largest rollercoaster>, but certainly we deserve to see how high we can go and how low we can get out of.

Why? Because all of that stuff defines our character <plus, who the hell wants their epitaph to be “he was consistent & predictable”?>.

I imagine all I am suggesting is that Life isn’t meant to be little. Too much consistency and predictability simply insures you have made your Life as little as it can be. I am not suggesting you have to go hog-wild and ‘live every moment like it is your last’ <which, in general, I tend to believe is fairly crappy advice> but rather … maybe it is challenging yourself to live on that razor thin balance of consistency, planned spontaneity and true spontaneity.

Look. I know this isn’t easy … and I also understand that there is a huge spectrum of living life possibilities between dangerous freedom and slavery to predictability. I know I personally swing back & forth between the two <which could make anyone’s head a little dizzy on occasion>.

But maybe it is simpler to go ahead and call this type of attitude & behavior as ‘restless consistency.’ Maybe we should aspire to live Life that way … and each of us define our restlessness however we would like, but maintain some restlessness.

I can guarantee only one thing: it will not all go well.

Okay.

I can guarantee two things: it will not all go well but what does go well will most likely go really well.

Well. Maybe I can predict one more thing. Your Life will be bigger. Your business will be bigger.

“The world is not as simple as we like to make it out to be. The outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count.

Nothing is really truly black or white and bad can be a disguise for good or beauty … and vice versa without one necessarily excluding the other.

Someone can both love and betray the object of its love … without diminishing the reality of the true feelings and value.

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting where all frontiers are artificial where at any moment everything can either end only to begin again … or finish suddenly forever … like an unexpected blow from an axe.

Where the only absolute, coherent, indisputable and definitive reality … is death. We have such little time when you look at Life … a tiny lightning flash between two eternal nights.

Everything has to do with everything else.

Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.”

—–

Arturo Perez Revarte

==============

Vague sucks.

And, yet, I would argue the majority of people only really have some vague outline of how the world works, or how effective or ineffective a leader is, or even only have a vague outline of any specific relationship between cause & affect.

This vaguery exists because it takes a lot of work to parse the details, and the appropriate details, and the ‘right’ details to make the outlines less vague and more tangible.

Is this work valuable ? Sure.

Is this work necessary to increase some certainty in Life? Sure.

Do most people do this work? No. The majority of people have shit to do <other than this type of work>. That is neither good nor bad … it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this, but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

What this means is that in this ‘vague outline’ people inevitably create a vague/semi solid outline belief. From there they look around on occasion and question that outline. The questions raised either support the vague outline or raise doubts and … well … more questions. All the while this is happening more information barrages the vague outline. In this barrage is a confusing mix of real, fake and quasi truths. All these confusing things do in the people’s minds is, contrary to belief, not confuse but rather make the person more dismissive of the incoming confusion and steadier in whatever vague outline they may have constructed.

Once again.

This is neither good nor bad … it just is what it is. A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

Ah.

I will say that at some point the ‘questions I have about my vague outline’gain some gravitas. This can happen several ways, but let me point out two:

The questions themselves coalesce into some easy to understand ‘blob’ from which people who have a vague outline decide … my vague outline is wrong <or sucks>. Let’s say that this is the point at which the doubts and questions begin to outweigh the beliefs that created the vague outline.

Someone weaves a narrative using the doubts & questions into a relatively succinct, believable and non-hyperbolic driven framing of an outline which people look at, scratch their heads, go “hmmmmmmmmm …” and decide this new vague outline will replace the one they had in place. Oh. To be clear. This narrative must not only use the doubts & questions to dissolve the current vague outline but must also offer an alternative vague outline <outlines need to be replaced not simply destroyed>.

The first never happens fast enough to people who just cannot understand how and why some people have decided to live with some vague outline <that just seems ‘not really a smart outline’ to them>.

The second is not as easy as it appears. It isn’t as easy because problems are rarely as clear as we would like them to be and a narrative never lives without the context of all the barrage of real, fake and quasi truths impacting and denting and solidifying a vague outline that already exists. Or someone weaves a great narrative to destroy but forgets to offer an alternative.

In other words … everything has to do with everything else.

I imagine I have two points today.

First.

We humans have come to accept a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to our lives and our decisions. This uncertainty is also built into the vague outlines we tend to construct for ourselves. What this means is that the construct of our beliefs and thoughts and ideas may be certain to us and, yet, its silhouette accommodates some uncertainty.

I began today by unequivocally stating that vague sucks. And I believe 99% of people would agree that it sucks. But in today’s world the majority of people have enough shit to do that they slot their thinking thoughts time. in one slot they place unequivocal certainty type thoughts. In another slot they place the “I will always be uncertain about this shit and thank God there is someone else at some higher pay grade than I who can be certain about it.” and, lastly, we slot all the shit in which we have formed some vague outline which accommodates a certain degree of uncertainty.

My point here is we tend to make this a binary discussion where the reality lies in a more complex mix of vagueness & clarity, certainty & uncertainty.

Second.

Certainty, in and of itself, has degrees … it is not a simple black or white binary.

People can have vague outlines AND have questions with regard to their outlines and, yet, not want to ditch the outline. “How can you still believe that?” may be one of the most misguided and unenlightened questions that has ever existed. It completely misses the point in that it assumes ignorance, stupidity or some negative trait in order to hold on to some vague outline regardless of doubts.

A vague outline is a choice.

No more and no less.

We question choices all the time and, yet, remain with the original choice despite some fairly extensive doubts. I say this because that said … it is silly to point out doubts and questions as a reason to ditch a vague outline. My easiest example is President Trump. His followers have a vague outline of what they like and believe about him. We scrutinize them for doubts and questions and when they share them we immediately pounce and suggest “then how can you still believe in your vague outline!?!” <usually said with a slight overall disbelief & wonder>.

Within their lives of doing shit that is important to them they created a vague outline of who and what Trump is, or isn’t, and … well … uncertainty was built into their certainty. The moment they will begin to disbelieve their vague outline is when the uncertainty overpowers the certainty. Until then we should stop acting confused that someone believes what they believe.

Anyway.

I love the quote I opened with even though I hate vague. The truth is that we all live with some vague outlines albeit your vague outline may actually be one of my non-vague outlines, and vice versa. And when they are in conflict then … well … there is conflict.

All that said, while vague sucks there is a reason we do it and this reason is not stupid, nor unenlightened nor ignorant.

It is just damn practical to have some vague outlines.

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting.

Life is restless.

Our vague outlines are necessary to accommodate some of its restlessness. Not recognizing that is either naive or foolish. I would also point out that if you are frustrated by someone’s vague outlines, the onus is upon you to bold the outline on whatever issue you want them to see so that, well, they can clearly see the outline of what really “is.” Just remember. There is a massive difference between vague and vague outlines.

“We are torn between nostalgia for the familiar and an urge for the foreign and strange. As often as not, we are homesick most for the places we have never known.”

—–

Carson Mccullers

=============

I would suggest the number one challenge to progress & “living in the present” is old things.

Ok. Not old things, per se, but how the idea of old things resides in our heads, hearts & minds.

For some reason old things have this incredible knack to not only gain value over time but also increase our hunger for them.

Sure. Not all things. Some old things suck, we know they suck and are glad to leave them in some scrap heap in the rear view mirror.

But the old things that didn’t suck? Whew. Memories and old things have an incredible magical way of shedding the bad and accumulating good.

Okay. Maybe they don’t accumulate good but rather ‘basic familiarity’ or ‘low level contentment’ inevitably take on a disproportionately positive value. They become slightly twisted totems that people are clearly drawn to and become touchstones of ‘when things were better.’

Shit.

“when things were better.”

Who wouldn’t have a hunger for that?

The problem is that I don’t think what most people realize, or maybe recognize, is:

that it is ideas and thinking which create the light that eliminates the darkness of the fear of the unknown

that new inevitably outshines old, and

that nostalgia is best found, mostly, when you find new familiar things and new habits to replace them.

I, personally, have never really seen the allure of most old things. I love old buildings and love museums but, to me, they are simply way stations to new ideas, new thinking and new behavior. To me the old seems muted and I desire to live loud & bold.

===========

“If you ask me what I came to do in this world, I, an artist, will answer you: I am here to live out loud.”

Émile Zola

=================

All that said. I understand the fact old things have a strange hunger to many people.

In fact. I would argue that ‘old things’ is an equal opportunity employer.

What I mean by that is we far too often conflate the desire for old things, or holding on to what was old, with generations. Old people hunger for old things and younger people hunger for new things.

This is simplistically misguided thinking.

When we do this we miss the bigger challenge old things place in front of us. Old things have an insatiable hunger for the human desire for familiarity and the desire for security that can be found within each and every one of us. That insatiable hunger sits in our stomachs and minds in a variety of ways and degrees depending on the individual … regardless of their age.

That hunger resides in older people AND younger people. Ignoring that means ignoring some basic realities which can be quite costly as you make observations, decision and choices.

This is particularly true in business.

Look. All of us, everyone, even the riskiest of risk takers like having some safety net.

Not all safety nets are created equal or look similar … but 99.9% of us seek some version of a safety net.

Old things tend to offer us that safety net. I say that so when we start ridiculing someone, old or young, for appearing to hunger a little too much for old things that maybe we … well … stop ridiculing and start thinking about it a little.

Maybe all someone is doing is seeking their version of a safety net.

Maybe they are seeking something a little familiar and maybe something that offers a little mental security in a world which, frankly, seems to consistently try and demolish all that is familiar & secure.

Maybe we should take a moment and make sure there is a safety net before we do something.

Regardless. As I noted when I wrote about ‘optimal newness’ we all desire, and like, some balance. We all find comfort in familiarity and some versions of nostalgia and find excitement in something new. Old things have a strange hunger for the desire for some familiarity & some ‘secured clarity’ that resides in every single person.

As a studier of behaviors and attitudes I pay attention to this.

As a business guy I pay attention to this.

Old things have earned the right to be totems of times better and familiar.

We should allow them their hunger. And, yet, as with almost everything in Life … we need to insure people, individuals, manage their diet in order to live healthy lives and have healthy professional careers.

As I just told a business leader last week who was expressing frustration with regard to how some employees were ‘holding on to old things with ragged claws’: people aren’t nostalgic for old memories they are more nostalgic for familiarity & security.

Ponder that. Because the conclusion to that statement is … if you can offer them some familiarity, and some security, with new things, old things lose their luster.

I’m not sure why you’re so angry at us. We haven’t been around as long as I assume you have been around.

You’ve been voting a lot longer than any of us. You’ve had a say in how our culture and society and economy and political system have been shaped. The state of affairs Sanders is describing has been evolving over several decades. Surely the great wisdom you possess saw most of this coming, the income inequality, the wars for profit, etc. Could it be that we’re easy to rage against because we’re younger and poorer and more vulnerable than you? Could it be that you should be raging against the person you see in the mirror every morning and the generation you associate with every day, but it’s too hard to face the misdeeds of your age group, so you project blame onto us?

—-

A Millennial commenting online

=============

“… whether you know it or not, you’re offspring are already screwed and it not because of Trump.

Lets be honest here… The kids are 20+ trillion dollars in debt. No middle class left. No economic growth. No jobs. A country infiltrated by illegal aliens. Murder rates skyrocketing. Our infrastructure is decimated. Islamic extremist threaten us daily. Russia and China flexing their military muscle and North Korea and Iran on the verge of nuclear weaponry.

And you’re worried about Trump becoming president.

When I see posts such as yours I think to myself how in the world with all the news sources at everyone finger tips can people be so blind to what is right in front of them. Ignorance is a bigger threat to us than Trump can ever be.”

—-

a white Boomer commenting online

========

Carlo Rosselli:

“I had a house: they destroyed it. I had a magazine: they suppressed it. I had ideas, dignity, an ideal: for these I was sent to prison. I had friends: they killed them.”

====================

I am a white guy.

An old white guy.

I don’t loathe being white and I certainly don’t believe simply being white makes one an evil person and it certainly doesn’t increase your odds of being ‘gooder’ or ‘badder’ simply because the color of your skin.

But sometimes, okay, more often than not, I write with some sense of disdain for the older generation of white guys <particularly in business> because we seem to be, or at least becoming, an angry generation.

Angry at the naïve young people.

Angry at some ill-defined establishment <or institution aligned against us>.

Angry at minorities <who appear to be getting a better break than us>.

Angry at women <who used to be more supportive of us>.

Angry at other countries <because, dammit, we are the best and if they improve we don’t look at ‘best’>.

Angry at change.

Angry at no change.

Shit. We are just angry enough at the world we will take selective bits of misinformation and get so angry we start getting angry at a world that just isn’t as bad as we are angry about.

But what is most concerning is that this anger is beginning to extend like a big amorphous blob in every direction. In other words … we are just angry people in an angry world looking for anyone and everywhere to focus our anger.

—

“I cannot be angry with you. Anger would be a waste of the moments we have and would make us weak in the face of the things yet to do.”

—

Some of this amorphous blob-like anger is explainable.

It CAN be easy to feel marginalized when looking back at the past.

It can be easy to feel less respected when looking back at the past.

It can be easy to feel like everything was better when looking back at the past.

It can be easy to remember a country that wasn’t obese, a country that did not struggle to educate the young or even a country in which there seemed to be an extreme demand for guns for everyone.

Yeah. I could point out, as an old white guy, what I call the silent minority <because they seem to be REALLY angry>. This silent minority is a slice of white America who has watched from the stagnant sidelines of Life as initiative after initiative is created to ‘right the wrongs’ of the past for women, the LBGT community, the blacks, Asians and … well … anyone non-white.

It may sound disingenuous to suggest this is a legitimate concern when white Americans currently have a majority-minority relationship in the country. But this is a real minority within the majority who has real anger <or maybe strong frustrations> all compounded by some fear/anger mongerers who encourage a sense that “real Americans” are being crowded out.

This anger creates a critique of everyone and everything all threaded through with an unhealthy thread of paranoia driven conjecture driven theories.

That said. It sure does seem like everyone is angry and angry about something or someone.

Well. Okay. The uber rich people aren’t angry … they just don’t care.

But everyone else is.

The aspiring uber rich people are angry at the ‘lazy entitled lower income’ who want money they haven’t earned.

The middle <& going down> income are people angry at everyone.

The lower middle <who are probably hard working & pragmatic but have always had hope to be & do better> people are angry at the aspiring uber & uber.

The lower income people are just angry <because while they don’t see the poor social mobility numbers that I do which state that America is not the land of opportunity … they already know that if they are born lower income they will most likely live & die in lower income>.

And all incomes people are angry at government.

Heck. People are angryat work.

They don’t feel secure in their jobs on top of they are losing hope they will have opportunities to move up on top of the fact it sometimes seems like charisma <and what is being called ‘instincts’> is being valued more than actually knowing what to do <and rational logical thinking>. Therefore those with ability <or the ability to enhance their ability> but don’t meet the charisma criteria <gift of gab, appearance, etc.> or don’t value the charisma thing themselves <they just want to get shit done> … lose hope. And get angry.

In addition. We older folk feel some anger as it seems like the workplace is outplacing us, and our skills, faster than ever before. Workplace generation gaps used to pit older veterans against young rookies but now it is a weird digital driven world, where thinking and deductive skills seem to have less value, and generation gaps in the workplace give a lot of people the sense that they are falling behind and must struggle to avoid being left out.

People are angry at home.

Home values <most homes major investment> struggle. There is uncertainty with the economy on top of uncertainty with time … people work hard to manage time and yet there never seems to be enough of it. We are angry about lack of money, lack of time and lack of perceived control over our own Life.

People are angry because our hope is being fucked with <hope for a better life & hope for better fairness>.

People are happy in life when they think it’s fair … or they get a fair chance. “I don’t need to get to the top … or be the best … or even get the most … I just want to know that I had the opportunity to do so IF I had really been the best or the top or deserved the most.” Most of us realize we are not ‘the best’ or the ‘cream of the crop’ … we are just average Joes & Joettes <everyday schmucks>.

And you know what? Most people, like me, are not angry about being an everyday schmuck <we are okay with it> but we do want to feel like that if by some miracle we were the best, if but for one critical moment, that we would get the opportunity to get what the best get.

Alternatively … if we see few glimpses of opportunity … well … we get angry.

This may be unrealistic <because it is just a ‘what if’ scenario>? But opportunity & hope are fickle funny things. And pretty valuable to us average everyday schmucks.

People are angry at Life.

While Life has always seemed to never miss an opportunity to screw with you … at least in the past it seemed like Life was fair <it took away and gave>.

People have a larger sense of anger.

This is more about a situation in which they feel like they have little or no control over and cannot do anything about. This creates an anger focus in that we start looking for someone and anyone to blame for whatever it is that is making us angry <I would argue the foundation of all his anger is that we are having our hopes and dreams screwed with>.

People are angry because optimism seems to be in the purview of only the naive fools.

We get angry because optimism is a conscious belief … almost an ideology if you elect to be. It has a tangible cognitive attachment to it … almost an expectation of what will be. if we perceive someone placing obstacles in between our optimistic thinking and the tangible cognitive attachment … well … we get fucking angry.

People are angry as they teeter between an anger that we are currently faced with the tragic ongoing horror show of President Trump ‘as a cut price Mussolini and demigod of the intellectually challenged’ and an anger that President Trump, the self-proclaimed change agent, has become mired in his own self proclaimed swamp.

People are angry that the US now consists of a shitload of small towns with shuttered shops, high unemployment in selective geography, low wages, increasing dependency on government support, free food, soup kitchens. Fifty million below the poverty line. Tens of millions without health insurance and those with coverage, struggling to pay their premiums … and 50% of Americans cannot even afford a vacation.

People are angry that the shining light of democracy is quickly taking on the appearance of a kind of banana republic … or a well developed “Somalia with guns, hamburgers, obesity and better drainage.”

As for me? While I was not a huge Clinton fan I get a little angry that a Hillary Clinton message grounded in “love, togetherness and kindness” was trumped by some asshat talking about “destruction, despair and winning is all that matters” — an asshat who publicly stated at a podium in front of a crowd of cheering people that he had no idea what Clinton meant by wanting to make America whole again.

All that said.

We are an angry people in an angry world.

Anger sometimes makes us cling to obvious untruths rather than face the truth — about ourselves, about society, about reality — and therefore we ignore the real truths which would lead to the well needed fundamental difficult changes necessary to diminish our anger.

Personally, I believe 99% of anger is wasted energy.

However. On occasion, anger, if causing some self-refection, can create a sense of reflective responsibility, i.e., what have I done to create his environment of anger? Is there is a real issue that has been raised … and needs to be addressed?

We are an angry group these days and, yet, we seem to remain at least minimally functional. The term “new normal” or “normalizing the current attitude” gets thrown around a lot these days. So much so that it just seems normal <or maybe we just cannot define abnormal well enough to deal with it>. And that is what concerns me as I reflect as an old white guy — functioning in an angry world as the new normal. We have mastered functional anger.

Look. People have legitimate reason to be angry, but we also have legitimate reasons to assume some personal responsibility for the legitimate parts as well as legitimate fundamental changes to solve our legitimate anger.

I will end this by suggesting anger is most often driven by a clash of ideas — even if you want to argue there is rampant ignorance <you can still have ideas even if you are ignorant>. A country is always wracked by conflict where the discussion can be raucous, or whispered, at different times in history, but it resides in all times nonetheless.

I would point out America is constantly morphing. The clash of ideas is actually what makes America great. Its lack of simplicity is what makes it great. Therefore it is actually the constant conflict that makes it great.

Think of the country as a number of tectonic plates constantly shifting and crashing into each other with earthquakes and trembles and ultimately soaring mountain ranges … and sinking islands. Those tectonic plates are the fractured sections of class, culture, race, income levels, social status, generational norms, educational attainment and, well, even individual state identity.

But possibly the largest tectonic civilization plates are what was, what is & what will be. The tectonic plates of time and everything that resides upon them … the mountain ranges of attitudes & desires and the valleys of “what I have and what I believe is mine to keep” <the latter can be material or mental>.

Anger is only good if it creates some change. I worry that we are, well, just angry and not using that anger for anything other than just being angry. We should admit to our anger, admit it is an angry world, and we should be using this anger to solve the anger.

“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

—-

Winston Churchill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Men will defend most passionately, that which they doubt the most.”

——

Frank Herbert

====

Well. I admit. I try to avoid fanatics. I realize in doing so I am doing so at the expense of debate & discussion. I say this as someone who has dedicated an entire site to enlightened conflict and actually believing positive conflict leads to sparks of knowledge and learning. But fanatics are maddening to debate with. The debate, the intellectual conflict, becomes anything but intellectual or enlightening and the only sparks that occur tend to be ones of frustration. Specifically, they are maddening for two reasons:

Generalities not specifics

More often than not there is a broad sweeping generalization or claim grounded on ‘common sense.’ Debates are dependent upon specifics. Debating generalities is like swatting at clouds <that is maddening>. Beyond generalities the main constructive base for formulating the opinion is … well … common sense, i.e., “just think about it … its common sense when you look at it!”

This is maddening because how the hell do you debate common sense that is anything but common or of any sense?

More often than not a fanatic uses one, maybe two, narrow well-honed factoids. They are stilts upon which the fanaticism balances itself. This is maddening for two reasons:

<1> the factoid is, well, yes, a fact — but selective truth at best. It is a fact selected from a larger group of facts. So it may actually be the truth, but not the whole truth;

<2> whole truth is rarely easy to explain. Truth, in general, is rarely simple. Stilts are simple. Enough said on why that is maddening.

Regardless.

You can tell when you have run into a fanatic because there arrives a point where it is counterproductive to further discuss a topic. Simplistically, that point is when one person crosses into fanaticism. It is typically at this point when a mind closes.

And when the mind closes being right matters more than actual truth.

And when the mind closes there is actually no chance for a rational discussion because you actually cannot even agree to disagree. There is no agreement.

This is because a fanatic must be right and, therefore, if they are right than everyone who disagrees must be wrong.

This is maddening.

I am not sure this last thought is a reflection of a closed mind or simply a stubborn fanatical belief, but with most fanatics their position and belief becomes who they are … a strong aspect of their self-identity.

Even worse? It is an aspect of not only their identity but also their self-worth. Think about that for a second.

In your attempt to get a fanatic to change their position you are actually attempting to undo who they are as well as their sense of worth. Think about that the next time you gnash your teeth over a stubborn fanatic.

Suffice it to say, a closed mind is a bad thing.

Here is my hope when dealing with a fanatic. Sometimes, yes, sometimes … you can say something that has been said a zillion times before and somehow that ‘something’ reveals a new truth. By the way, this is more often than not not a simple truth or factoid, it is more often you stumbling across the moment in their past <or creating a visceral mental tie to that moment> that was actually the foundation for the fanaticism. Somehow you reveal a thought that reminds the person of a thought long misplaced or forgotten which ultimately creates ‘something’ which begins the unraveling of the whole foundation of the fanaticism.

My real point here is that the ‘something’ more often than not does not address the superficial surface fanaticism but instead addresses an underlying underpinning.

Please note the key word I used above – ‘stumble’. You can pick away at memories and try to reveal the ‘tipping moment’ in their thinking but more often than not you just stumble across it … uh oh … at the right time. Yeah. Timing matters too <and you never know about the timing>.

Anyway.

Fanatics are not just maddening but they can also be a little frightening.

===

“Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right.”

Laurens Van der Post

===

Now. Let me be clear about fanatics. Because some of the things I have written may suggest that these are all people wearing tin foil hates living in their parents’ basement reading up on the Illuminati.

That is not true. I would be willing to bet we all know fanatics. It can be someone you know well, even like most of the time, except for that “one topic.” The one topic for which they reach into their pocket and pull out their fanatic hat and put it on.

Here is where I give fanatics a break. The path I am suggesting is a trying, difficult path that takes a lot of work.

I am a curiosity guy and I walk a curious path. I believe … no … I know that there will always be something yet to be known that can significantly later or even completely undo everything we, or I, know and believe.

In fact … my Life is almost an ongoing quest to learn whatever I can to unlearn everything I know. And, yet, I am confident in my beliefs so that positively impacts how I live my Life and conduct myself. In other words, while confident in my beliefs I am not defined by them which permits me to constantly reexamine them in light of new information. I say all that because I know that the whole concept of ‘unlearning what you believe’ and ‘constantly seeking new knowledge with an eye to altering one’s beliefs’ is not an easy task.

It is easier to establish some beliefs and then move on to expanding the mind on a variety of other things. Let’s call this ‘closing parts of your mind’ rather than simply suggesting someone has a closed mind.

Life shrivels with someone who has a closed mind, but a partially closed mind permits enough growth to ignore the stagnant parts of the mind. Young people tend to be more receptive to the concept that there will always be some unknown fact just around the next proverbial corner that will turn some belief upside down. Older people tend to close off portions of their minds therefore eliminating differing opinions which could potentially alter something they hold true.

I believe <just my opinion> this happens because of the whole self-identity and self-worth thing I brought up earlier.

Young people are still growing into their identity and have shit for self-worth. They are trying out different thoughts and ideas like new clothes. Outgrowing some and ultimately wearing some until they fall apart.

Older people have some things that are ground into their identity & worth.

Anyway. Fanatics actually have an advantage over … well … me at least.

They stridently believe in something. That must be a comfort to them in Life.

I envy them their comfort.

And, yet, maddened by the fact they are so comfortable they won’t explore a different, maybe uncomfortable, thought.

Should we all believe in nothing? Of course not.

Life throughout history reveals the constant struggle between what we knew, what we know now and what will be known. It is a reflection of a constant struggle for truth which is a malleable concept even on a good day.

So most of us try and find truth when we can find it and as best as we can.

Fanatics don’t try.

Look. The challenge for all of us is to be careful how tightly we dogmatically cling to what we see as ‘the truth’ and how strongly we attack others’ truth. Heck. At any given point we might just both be right … or wrong.

Regardless.

Fanatics have lost that challenge. In fact, I am not sure they even recognize the challenge. I find that maddening. That is why I avoid fanatics.

“Show not what has been done, but what can be. How beautiful the world would be if there were a procedure for moving through labyrinths.”―

Umberto Eco

==============

“You are not going nowhere just because you haven’t gotten where you want to go yet.”

—-

Taylor Swift

====

So. Direction is one of the most stressful discussion in Life & in business. Where are you going? How are you planning on getting there? And, of course, are you sure that is the right direction?

Well.

I never thought I would ever use a Taylor Swift quote let alone use it to make a point.

I loved the quote. And it sparked me to thinking because if you think about it … not getting to where you want to be and nowhere … can look awfully similar.

But it is not.

Not even close.

The idea of “getting somewhere”, whether in your career, in Life, in personal change, in a relationship, in anything, sometimes seems to dominate our Life. This destination, this ‘thing’ we have envisioned in our mind, becomes sort of a measurement with regard to how we are effectively, or ineffectively, living our life. And in doing so if we are somewhere other than ‘there’ which may mean we simply just haven’t got there, yet, a lot of people suggest that means you are nowhere.

That is wrong. Very very <very> wrong.

We spends gobs of time and money trying to answer these questions. If you think about it while it may not sound completely absurd (defining direction insures you are at least not going somewhere completely useless) it can actually look like an incredibly poor investment with a dubious ROI.

It can be a stress on your everyday life.

It can be a burden.

It can create an absurdly long list of plans and things to do.

It can also translate into a lot of wasted time (because often where you decide to go isn’t exactly where you end up simply because Life’s terrain dictated a slightly better destination).

I sometimes think this is a reflection of what is wrong in today’s society – this belief if you haven’t achieved something you have achieved nothing.

Most of Life is a reflection of a shitload of journeys and paths and, well, a lot of walking, running, tripping and crawling. Because of that a shitload of people would suggest that most of your life you have been running in place <which sounds silly as I type it> or ‘wandering aimlessly <which also sounds silly as I type it because most times most people are wanting to get to where they want to be> and basically they are suggesting that, uhm, you have expended energy — and got nowhere.

99% of the time those people are just assholes.

Assholes who focus on destinations and not journeys. They only take satisfaction in highlighting specific milestones, objectives and outcomes achieved. They struggle to see the satisfaction in exploration, wandering and the journeys taken to the outcomes.

Look. I am not going to suggest achieving something, specifically, getting to where you want to be is not an admirable and useful objective. Because it is. Getting to where you want to be is aspirational and it implies you want to be better than what you are today. Being better and becoming better is something all of us should embrace.

But I will suggest that simply because you have not got there yet that you have gone nowhere.

In fact, I could argue that simply deciding where you want to be is somewhere.

In fact, doing something, even something small, is better than nothing and is something other than nowhere.

Anyway. You know what? it’s all exploration even if you don’t care about where you want to go. Why? You end up somewhere.

Here is the bottom line.

I would guess 90% of us are somewhere other than where we want to be. We may see glimpses of it and we may actually have touched it briefly, but most of us are still in the midst of getting there.

<to complete that equation I envision 5% don’t even try having given up and 5% believe they are there>

90% of us are certainly not ‘nowhere.’ We are simply works in progress trying to get somewhere better than who and what we are today. That means suggesting just because you haven’t got to where you wanted to be is ‘nowhere’ would mean that 90% of us are milling about in some wretched space of nothingness … and that is silly. Most of us are pretty happy and fairly content and typically thinking about being better.

There is a lesson here.

While I imagine Ms. Swift doesn’t philosophize on this thought like Umberto Eco, she has certainly embraced her responsibility & empowerment to communicate the right things to hordes of young people. And for that I applaud her. I do so not only because she is impacting young people’s minds in a good smart way but because there are a boatload of older people who have been gobsmacked into believing if you haven’t got to where you want to be that you are nowhere <and they do not hesitate to tell a shitload of people that>.

Embracing an ‘outcome is the most important’ Life philosophy is a slippery slope.

I would much rather we embrace a “just because you have not got to where you want to be does not necessarily mean you are nowhere” Life philosophy. You can embrace both but if you begin with the latter you are more likely to not only encourage the right behavior in people you will most likely encourage a more positive view of your own Life.

Lastly.

Okay. All this may sound rudderless. But 99% of the time while this discussion sounds, well, directionless, void of objective & absent of any ‘milestones’, it is none of those things. 99% of the time we have a sense of some destination, we just can’t really articulate it. Now. In a world that has an unhealthy relationship with measurement, achievement & “if it is intangible, can you make it tangible”, that ‘not able to articulate’ is a sonuvabitch to try and embrace.

I sometimes think that end of the end of this type of ‘going somewhere, just not sure where’journey the people who didn’t try to cram all the plans into the time and simply kept walking knowing they would get somewhere will absolutely find themselves some place better than where they started from and most likely end up somewhere good.

I will say Life can truly be a ‘wonderland’ if you don’t over think it. Sometimes the journey is an exploration and as long as you keep exploring the “somewhere” you get to is richer and, in the case of a business or an individual, maybe a stronger place. Maybe Life, and even business to some extent, is a time to wander.

To explore. To just see what you will see. And see what you will find.

Maybe this is time to remember Calvin & Hobbes: “Any road followed precisely to its end leads precisely nowhere.”

Maybe Alice in Wonderland, Umberto Eco & Taylor Swift and Calvin & Hobbes have the right idea. Nowhere may be a good destination objective.

Well. This is about ‘impossible versus what is possible’ and the absurd discussions that takes place around this phrase.

Let me begin where I will end <just in case you don’t want to read everything in between>.

Impossible versus possible is the ultimate Life conundrum <at least for today’s piece>.

The ‘let me tell you what is possible’people are most strident in identifying ‘the possible’ utilizing something called “an objective knowledge approach” <‘the world as it really is’>. They seek to provide their beliefs from ‘nowhere & everywhere’ or maybe better said by providing perspective by looking at it from all angles. Well. Someone named Donna Haraway called this “the God trick.” In other words … it is impossible.

Oops. In order to explain and clearly define ‘what is possible’ <therefore by doing so … by a process of elimination … defining a set of ‘what is impossible’> someone needs to … well … do the impossible.

Yikes. Now there is a Life, and business, truth (conundrum) to ponder.

Ok. With all that senseless nonsense, or was that serious nonsense, out of the way … let me move forward.

If you ever want to have a seriously nonsensical discussion with someone just bring up ‘impossible.’ And as soon as impossible is brought up you may as well quote Alice in Wonderland … ‘I think of 6 impossible things before breakfast.’Personally, I have a love/hate relationship with the impossible. I truly understand that some things are impossible. Yup. Believe it or not … there are truly some of those out there. But I also have heard so many times ‘that is impossible’ only to find out it was, well, actually possible <assuming you spent some time breaking apart the impossible and putting it back together again in a way that is possible … kind of like the Rubik’s cube style of thinking> that I am quite cynical of “impossible”.

I also admit that I find impossible interesting. Certainly more interesting than the possible. Likely my interest is they both, mixed together, can seen from two different and opposite perspectives.

Anyway.

Alice in Wonderland <and the Looking Glass> are outstanding examples of how to have serious nonsensical discussions on impossible. And it is a good reminder that while it may seem like senseless nonsense <wasted time> to us old folk … it is important serious nonsense to young people.

Alice <as in wonderland> is but a 7 year old in literature but metaphorically she symbolizes all that the youth has to offer. She questions everything and all questions seemingly directed through an intrepid attitude all the while constantly using her intellect to solve problems. Oh. And she always speaks her mind.

In fact … the lesson she shares is in her growing belief that very few things “indeed, were really impossible.”

A message all young people have at the forefront of their minds.

It is also a message most old people have in their mental waste can.

Just as all youth in today’s world … Alice is plucky, undaunted, and impervious to the dangers that may lie in world. These attributes typically lead the young to eagerly and curiously delve into a world seemingly challenged by being stuck only in what is possible. And, just as the young have an aggravating habit to do, Alice literally has to open the door for herself.

—————

Alice finds herself at the Duchess’s door and knocks, but to no avail. This exchange between Alice and the Frog – Footman follows:

“But what am I to do? ” said Alice.

“Anything you like,” said the Footman, and began whistling.

“Oh, there’s no use in talking to him,” said Alice desperately: “he’s perfectly idiotic!”

And she opened the door and went in.

————-

What a marvelous thought with regard to impossible … and possible.

Ah, so what am I to do? … anything you like.

The elder generation <the Frog doorman> doesn’t limit possibilities by suggesting impossibilities but rather opens up opportunities to what is possible … and empowers thinking. The answer opens up all possibilities for her. She begins to question following tried & true <accepted> beliefs and wondering by just following ‘rules’ it will get her nowhere and that it is within her power to do anything she wants … to achieve her desired results.

In this case? She opens the door.

Once through the door? Alice experiments as she realizes that all the traditional rules and ‘possibilities’ aren’t necessarily the only way to do things … and by experimenting not only does she make shit happen … she experiences new things <impossible things>.

Basically she is challenging what I believe philosophers call logical possibility and impossibility. I probably do not have this exactly right but this philosophical thought is something along these lines:

There are some things that we simply can’t imagine regardless of how hard we try, since they’re inherently contradictory or nonsensical. And then there are many other things that we improperly judge to be impossible for no other reason than that they don’t conform to our established ideas about how the world normally goes <Hume called these ‘matters of fact’>.

Matters of fact constitute one of two categories into which Hume sorted the things about which people make inquiries and exercise their reason. The other category is relations of ideas. Relations of ideas pertain to the truths of mathematics <2 + 2 = 4>, pure logic <frogs are frogs> and “every affirmation that is either intuitively or demonstrably certain.”

Therefore Hume suggests because the negation of any true statement of this sort is impossible it’s unimaginable <like 2 + 2 could add up to anything but 4>.

Anyway. Imagination is essential to this type of thinking – Alice’s as well as the young. In many ways imagination is the same as … yet opposite at exactly the same time … reality. Just as the impossible is simply some warped version of possible.

This may all sound absurd … as does anything that seems impossible. Impossible rationally discussed remains in the impossible category, unfortunately, it is only when you think irrationally that impossible becomes … well … possible.

How absurd is that?

Ambrose Pierce wrote in the Devil’s Dictionary: Absurdity – A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one’s own opinion.

That which is deemed impossible is often simply a thought encapsulated within one’s own opinion.

Which is nonsensical in itself.

Making sense of the nonsensical is serious stuff. And it takes some imaginative thinking. Because, frankly, most nonsense about ‘impossible’ is actually provisional … circumstantial. In other words … change the circumstances and you can often discern a completely new & unexpected rule of cause and effect which ultimately makes the initial impossible … well … possible.cWe often get frustrated by that which we expect just to ‘be’ as we challenge what we understand is the natural order of the world or the ‘accepted rules of what is … and what will be … if you follow this thinking.”

I know it is frustrating to me <but I like ‘impossible things’>.

All that said.

It makes the everyday world is frustrating to those who challenge impossible things because this type of thinking challenges most people’s desire to fit experiences in a logical framework where they can not only make sense of the relationship between cause and effect but also draw up a list of rules to insure impossible is clearly defined <and can be avoided>. And, yet, a quest for true knowledge would suggest ignoring those ‘impossible rules’ as often as is feasible.

<that all made my head hurt>

Ok. Back to Alice as an example. Alice is on a quest for true knowledge. Wonderland <or youth> is a place where one can release inhibitions, to release preconceptions of ideas and to start really questioning to gain true wisdom and … I assume … true knowledge.

In its youthful insanity, in its complete separation from the world of adults, one can begin the long journey to true knowledge and defining truth in that impossible things are often quite readily possible.

Making the possible from the impossible is a journey. With obstacles and twists and turns … and often some discussions that will make your head spin like the girl in The Exorcist and spew forth green stuff:

In fact … Alice shares a discussion like this:

“… I believe I can guess that,” (Alice) added aloud.

“Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?” said the March Hare.

“Exactly so,” said Alice.

“Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on.

“I do,” Alice hastily replied, “at least – at least I mean what I say – that’s the same thing, you know.”

“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter. “Why, you might just as well say that ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!”

“You might just as well say,” added the March Hare, “that ‘I like what I get’ is the same as ‘I get what I like’!”

“You might just as well say,” added the Dormouse, which seemed to be talking in its sleep, “that ‘I breathe when I sleep’ is the same thing as ‘I sleep when I breathe’!”

“It is the same thing to you,” said the Hatter, and here the conversation dropped, and the party sat silent for a minute, while Alice thought over all she could remember …

Whew. What a delightful episode in Wonderland or, uhm, is this a business meeting I was in?

We older folk can twist words using preconceived thoughts to design impossibilities better than anyone. And the young struggle to unwind the tangled web of reasoning because ‘impossible’ is a roadblock they aren’t willing to admit exists until they actually run into it.

The young rarely hesitate to discard preconceptions <those roadblocks> when they come across situations that seem to obviously refute them. In their youthful vim & vigor they display a consistent readiness to encounter reality on their own terms. An attribute, or character trait, essential in the discovery of truth … and the abolition of the impossible <we older folk have stated as truth>.

Obviously I am overstating the youth versus older folk. Because we older folk don’t come up with our ‘that is impossible’ crap willy nilly. Our ‘matters of fact’ beliefs are based on what we have experienced — seen, smelled, touched, and tasted. It is impossible <oops … didn’t mean to use that word there> to observe a future objectively this way. It was Hume who suggested that the only reason we don’t think that the world will radically change tomorrow is that it hasn’t ever changed in this way before.

It was also Hume who believed all of our beliefs about ‘unobserved matters’ rest on the one key assumption that the future will resemble the past.

This may sound irrational but there is no rational way of convincing someone they are wrong about this or, as a corollary, that tomorrow will be different.

You are stuck. Stuck in what is possible and the impossible behind some door you cannot see behind.

<back to Alice>

What does Alice do in this case? She literally opens the door for herself.

“What am I to do?”

The Frog Footman’s response … “anything you like.” The response opens up all possibilities. She has the power to do anything she wants. She has the opportunity to define what is possible. Possibilities are like opening a door that you have either been told will not open or you hesitate to open because of some preconceived notion <like in Alice’s case … she seeks permission>.

Anyway <here is the big close>.

The Duchess keenly observed, “Everything’s got a moral, if only you can find it.”

The moral of this rant/observation/babble?

Geez.

I am not sure I am qualified to offer a moral to this story. But maybe a thought on the impossible <or a couple of thoughts>.

First thought.

While there are certainly ‘impossible’ things there are far more possible things than we believe. In fact, maybe the problem is that most of us struggle with the infiniteness of possibilities and therefore seek to expand the ‘impossible’ to decrease the possible <and make it slightly more palatable and less stressful>.

Sound nuts? No more nuts than arguing something is impossible only to find out somebody made it possible.

Second thought.

Logical thinking about impossibilities is actually illogical <if you want to think about it effectively>.

Logical thinking shouldn’t see possible or impossible but rather possible but inappropriate actions and decision.

I say this because we are ultimately confronted by an infinite number of possibilities. Sometimes we can resolve them through simple rules and yet sometimes we need additional rules to decide which of the simple rules to use.

And when completely unfamiliar situations arise we have to imagine new rules <or use what has been believed in the past> that include or discount the previous ones therefore either redefining rules or creating new ones <in a never ending cycle>. Using that kind of logic … the only mistakes we can truly make are in our application of rules … choosing one over another. Maybe the only mistake is to believe something is impossible.

Third thought.

Impossible is all about fear. Yup. Because the possible is comfortable. It is the known. It is the pleasant company of friends in a warm comfortable room with your favorite drink in hand speaking of this and that. The impossible is the unexpected factor. It is … well … fear.

Fear as the sudden shattering discovery of a reality that while it may only decide to reveal itself at the moment … has always been present, simply unseen, in your warm comfortable room. It is a fear embodied in a crushing end of an ignorance … or simply an uncomfortable disruption of easy comfort. Impossible means being swept into a vast emptiness of bottomless black depths of oceans where, as you are driven deep, you have the unpleasant certainty that your feet are far from any steady ground. It is a fear in which unlike a dream <or nightmare> you are unsure you will awake and see the familiar you left behind when you fell asleep.